All you need to know

[Thorn]

You are just using semantics. That is not an answer. Tell me how this is fundamentally different, in action, than what is happening now? I see no difference.

Well, do you think our presence is the same in Japan as it is in Iraq? We have not really taken any action towards rebuilding the former to meet our standards of "civility".

Which candidate is that????

Beyond being one of the main thing Ron Paul shilled on about, none, far as I know. As far as candidates with a chance of winning? None, fortunately.

 

[The Painter]

Well, do you think our presence is the same in Japan as it is in Iraq? We have not really taken any action towards rebuilding the former to meet our standards of "civility".

This is not an answer to my question. Let me remind you

Obama: "We would get combat troops out of Iraq. The only troops that would remain would be those that have to protect US bases and US civilians, as well as to engage in counterterrorism activities in Iraq."

Tell me how this is fundamentally different, in action, than what is happening now?

 

[Thorn]

I am not sure, though the apologist in me wants to say that the shift to counter terrorism will go the way of intelligence and not gunfire. That's just what I assume.

 

[steverino]

Not sure how any of the above contradicts what I said. Or maybe you are just agreeing with me?

I agree with nothing you say on this thread.

 

[Richard Masters]

So bin Ladin is of little consequence to a discussion about terrorism? Seeing as how bin Ladin is terrorist #1 as far as the US is concerned, and he gives as his reason for attacking us our presence in Saudi Arabia, I think that's relevant to bring up.

Relevant to terrorism, but irrelevant to our presence in Iraq.

Do you really think the Al Qaeda members in Iraq are fighting to protect the sovereignty of Iraq?

Do you really think I think that? Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we went there.

They are there to kill Americans, our troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan just make closer targets.

Of course, that's what terrorism is about.

Our presence there no more causes terrorism than does a black person living near KKK members causes racism.

You are misrepresenting my position. I don't claim our presence causes terrorism. I said it fuels terrorism, along with other factors. Furthermore, you think I mean that our presence causes terrorism proximately, which is not my position at all. Our unwanted presence and interference incites hatred which eventually comes back to bite us.

This isn't very hard to understand. School-age children are very familiar with this phenomenon.

Again, I don't buy the argument that terrorists are fighting us because they want to protect the sovereignty of Iraq.

Not my argument at all...

I think the majority of the people currently trying to attack us would still try to do so regardless of whether or not we had invaded Iraq.

See above.

The most successful terrorist attack this country has ever seen was 9/11, and before that we had the embassy bombings and the attack on the USS Cole. All of those attacks were by the same organization, led and financed by the same person. That person has made it very clear what his reasons are for trying to kill us and it has nothing to do with Iraq.

Hmm, a military destroyer 11,000 miles from its country? And you still misrepresent my argument...

Is my neighbor Saddam Hussein in this analogy?

Your neighbor Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs. At best you are a terrorist killing your neighbors based on some wild conspiracy theory.

If it is, my neighbor would be a genocidal maniac who was also leading me to believe he was trying to accumulate weapons of mass destruction.

So take him out, but don't go around killing HIS neighbors. And don't be surprised when law enforcement shows up to take you away.

Right now, leaving Iraq is out of the question. Leaving Iraq in the condition it's in would be tenfold worse than the decision to invade it. No one likes death, destruction, and high taxes, but I have no doubt the alternative would be much worse if we left.

Why would it be worse than the initial decision to invade it?

You were voicing your preference with regards to what kind of a president you would like when it comes to personal freedoms. That point, though I agree with you, is irrelevant to a discussion about our presence in the Middle East because I don't believe a president who effectively fights terrorism and a president who respects human rights and dignity are mutually exclusive.

They are not exclusive, but a president who fights terrorism effectively would understand that terrorism is not exclusive to the Middle East, that terrorism is a tactic and not a concrete target to be fought, and that pissing people off around the world is counter-productive to reducing the number of terrorist attacks the United States experiences.

 

[Richard Masters]

I am not sure, though the apologist in me wants to say that the shift to counter terrorism will go the way of intelligence and not gunfire. That's just what I assume.

I would hope so.

 

[Richard Masters]

I agree with nothing you say on this thread.

Hmm, but I agree with you, is this a paradox?

 

[Sefarst]

Relevant to terrorism, but irrelevant to our presence in Iraq.

Then do you dispute that we're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq?

Do you really think I think that? Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we went there.

Then what should that tell you?

You are misrepresenting my position. I don't claim our presence causes terrorism. I said it fuels terrorism, along with other factors. Furthermore, you think I mean that our presence causes terrorism proximately, which is not my position at all. Our unwanted presence and interference incites hatred which eventually comes back to bite us.

Unwanted by whom? Every possible policy any government can make is going to upset someone. Your argument seems to be that an angry Iraqi might one day want to get revenge. The family members of a criminal killed in a police standoff might one day want to get revenge. Helping the Afghanis fight off the Russians only fueled the anger felt by the Russians in the Cold War. Recognizing the independence of Kosovo today might one day make our eastern friends want to get revenge as well. All American policy, domestic or foreign would be crippled if we made it contingent on not fueling the possible anger of some person or group.

This isn't very hard to understand. School-age children are very familiar with this phenomenon.

Are they?

Hmm, a military destroyer 11,000 miles from its country?

Yes.

And you still misrepresent my argument...

You've misrepresented your own argument. You're trying to split hairs between fueling terrorism and causing terrorism and wanting to talk about the former without mentioning real, confirmed terrorists. Your argument boils down to nothing more than, "what if we make them angrier than they all ready are?" I'm trying to explain to you that they're willing to kill us for much less.

Your neighbor Saddam Hussein didn't have any WMDs. At best you are a terrorist killing your neighbors based on some wild conspiracy theory.

Let's keep going with this. My neighbor Saddam Hussein murders the people two houses down and more people three houses down from them. He drives his truck into the house of another neighbor and tries to steal his possessions. He regularly beats his wife and children and is very clear to me that he hates me and would try to kill me if given the chance. The police can't help. One day, he appears to be making a nuclear missile in his basement. What do I do?

So take him out, but don't go around killing HIS neighbors. And don't be surprised when law enforcement shows up to take you away.

We did take him. And don't forget, in this analogy the law enforcement would be the UN which is powerless without MY help and has been trying to get the guy for over a decade with no success.

Why would it be worse than the initial decision to invade it?

I didn't support the initial decision to invade, but leaving a country in the middle of a civil war, infiltrated by Al Qaeda in a basic power vacuum would be disastrous. Worse than the troubles we are facing right now (which are getting better, by the way).

They are not exclusive, but a president who fights terrorism effectively would understand that terrorism is not exclusive to the Middle East, that terrorism is a tactic and not a concrete target to be fought, and that pissing people off around the world is counter-productive to reducing the number of terrorist attacks the United States experiences.

I agree that terrorism is not exclusive to the Middle East. We have agencies to guard against other forms of terrorism such as domestic terrorism (Timothy McVeigh). But by what ratio are we pissing people off? Are we pissing them off to the point they would be willing to hijack an airplane and kill themselves in the hopes of murdering a couple of us? After six years, what's the rate of Iraqi terrorists killing US citizens?

 

[Richard Masters]

Then do you dispute that we're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq?

No.

Then what should that tell you?

It tells me that we have no more business being in Iraq than Al-Qaeda does. And that if we hadn't gone to Iraq in the first place, there would be no terrorists to fight in Iraq.

Unwanted by whom? Every possible policy any government can make is going to upset someone. Your argument seems to be that an angry Iraqi might one day want to get revenge.

It's not just an argument. It's a reality. It is the case with Iran, and it is the case with Serbians burning down our embassy.

The family members of a criminal killed in a police standoff might one day want to get revenge.

So? We don't usually go kill the family members of a criminal just to pacify them, but I guess you'd be OK with that.

Helping the Afghanis fight off the Russians only fueled the anger felt by the Russians in the Cold War. Recognizing the independence of Kosovo today might one day make our eastern friends want to get revenge as well.

Already did.

All American policy, domestic or foreign would be crippled if we made it contingent on not fueling the possible anger of some person or group.

And why is this a bad thing? Haven't you noticed our "American" policy has resulted in the Iraq War, the PATRIOT Act and has nearly started a new war with Iran?

Are they?

Yes.

You've misrepresented your own argument. You're trying to split hairs between fueling terrorism and causing terrorism and wanting to talk about the former without mentioning real, confirmed terrorists.

Not really. You have the same mistaken perception of terrorism as the brainwashed public. Terrorists are the least of our problem. We have REAL CONFIRMED COUNTRIES like Iran at the brink of war due to our foreign policy.

Your argument boils down to nothing more than, "what if we make them angrier than they all ready are?" I'm trying to explain to you that they're willing to kill us for much less.

I'm trying to explain to you that that's not my entire argument. And I'm well aware that they are willing to kill us for much less. The problem is you don't seem to understand what that is.

Let's keep going with this. My neighbor Saddam Hussein murders the people two houses down and more people three houses down from them. He drives his truck into the house of another neighbor and tries to steal his possessions. He regularly beats his wife and children and is very clear to me that he hates me and would try to kill me if given the chance. The police can't help. One day, he appears to be making a nuclear missile in his basement. What do I do?

Take him out. Not his neighbors. Furthermore, the weapons inspectors have already told you he has no nuclear missiles in his basement.

We did take him. And don't forget, in this analogy the law enforcement would be the UN which is powerless without MY help and has been trying to get the guy for over a decade with no success.

The UN wasn't powerless. They searched for WMDs and found none. Furthermore, in the analogy, you have decided to risk the lives of all your neighbors over your little gut feeling over non-existent WMDs.

But that's not all... after you've been proven wrong, you've decided to stay and kill more people, waste more resources, etc. In the end, how are you different from Saddam Hussein?

Maybe you had better intentions, but the result was the death of more innocent people.

I didn't support the initial decision to invade, but leaving a country in the middle of a civil war, infiltrated by Al Qaeda in a basic power vacuum would be disastrous.

So take out Al-Qaeda and leave.

Worse than the troubles we are facing right now (which are getting better, by the way).

You need to think long term. Our troubles with the Balkans were minor. That's because they have only now begun.

If you think the situation in Iraq is over, you should look into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - the one we are currently fueling by taking sides.

I agree that terrorism is not exclusive to the Middle East. We have agencies to guard against other forms of terrorism such as domestic terrorism (Timothy McVeigh). But by what ratio are we pissing people off? Are we pissing them off to the point they would be willing to hijack an airplane and kill themselves in the hopes of murdering a couple of us? After six years, what's the rate of Iraqi terrorists killing US citizens?

How about the rest of the world? I guess our foreign policy has no effect over our politics with China, Iran, Syria, Israel, Palestine, Venezuela.

I guess you don't see our invasions as terrorism, which is why you could never understand why the UN cheers when Bush is demonized.